Public policy and morality: abortion and gays

[opusAquinas]

People assume aborted babies go to heaven even though the Church does not know for sure. Now if it were true that aborted babies go to heaven then there would be a perverse incentive to get an abortion. *** But so is this why God set it up so we don’t know for sure? ***

Does the government allows abortion because of the harm to women from back alley abortions?

Does the government allow gay marriage because gays would then be adopting each other to pass on property? Incest implication.

How does a Catholic respond?

 

[on_the_hill]

Does the government allows abortion because of the harm to women from back alley abortions?

I think this was probably part of the original thought process, and is probably still used as an emotional fear factor to allow abortions to continue.

Does the government allow gay marriage because gays would then be adopting each other to pass on property? Incest implication.

I’ve never heard that argument. I think govt allows gay marriage to avoid what it perceives as discrimination.

 

[opusAquinas]

on_the_hill:
Well it has to be discrimination against something that is NOT immoral. The government has to say homosexual acts are moral because… so many do it…

 

[edwest2]

Well it has to be discrimination against something that is NOT immoral. The government has to say homosexual acts are moral because… so many do it…

Then all that voting was a sham. Judges and politicians are pushing what some gay people call marriage.

Abortion was a lie and kills the unborn.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Oreoracle]

Does the government allow gay marriage because gays would then be adopting each other to pass on property? Incest implication.

Umm, that’s a very…interesting…interpretation of gay marriage. Where did you get the impression that gays intend to adopt each other through marriage?

 

[opusAquinas]

Umm, that’s a very…interesting…interpretation of gay marriage. Where did you get the impression that gays intend to adopt each other through marriage?

OK to clarify. The government permits gay marriage in order to prevent adoption by gay lovers for the purpose of say property inheritance. Understand now?

But the government also permits gay marriage because it now recognizes the homosexual act as moral.

 

[Oreoracle]

OK to clarify. The government permits gay marriage in order to prevent adoption by gay lovers for the purpose of say property inheritance. Understand now?

Alright, I see what you mean. I suppose the government could just devise an easier way to transfer property and bestow medical proxy rights. This would be a compromise, since the religious get to keep the label “marriage” to themselves but gays could still get rights that, frankly, it makes sense for them to have if they’re in a committed relationship.

I have no issue with the anti-gay-marriage crowd if their argument is only nominal. Definitions are conventional, so if they want to reserve a word to distinguish their relationships from others, they are entitled to do that, though I personally care little about the words. The debate is over whether it makes sense for people in any committed relationship between consenting adults to have rights covering each other, and it certainly does.

But the government also permits gay marriage because it now recognizes the homosexual act as moral.

I never assume that the government adheres to any morals. They permit it because they are pressured to do so by their constituency.

 

[opusAquinas]

Alright, I see what you mean. I suppose the government could just devise an easier way to transfer property and bestow medical proxy rights. This would be a compromise, since the religious get to keep the label “marriage” to themselves but gays could still get rights that, frankly, it makes sense for them to have if they’re in a committed relationship.

I have no issue with the anti-gay-marriage crowd if their argument is only nominal. Definitions are conventional, so if they want to reserve a word to distinguish their relationships from others, they are entitled to do that, though I personally care little about the words. The debate is over whether it makes sense for people in any committed relationship between consenting adults to have rights covering each other, and it certainly does.

I never assume that the government adheres to any morals. They permit it because they are pressured to do so by their constituency.

The government assume the morality of the constituency.

 

[inocente]

OK to clarify. The government permits gay marriage in order to prevent adoption by gay lovers for the purpose of say property inheritance. Understand now?

But the government also permits gay marriage because it now recognizes the homosexual act as moral.

A little research on your part would tell you that in most US states gays can and do adopt children anyway.

“As of 2012, approximately two million children in the United States were being raised by LGBT parents and unable to establish a legal relationship with both their LGBT parents.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States

Marriage allows the adoption to be in two names rather than one. The reason for equal marriage is that unjust inequality harms citizens and harms society. Gay citizens pay their taxes and contribute to society just like anyone else. They are not breaking the law so it is immoral for the state to discriminate against them.

 

[on_the_hill]

I suppose the government could just devise an easier way to transfer property and bestow medical proxy rights.

I wonder if gay marriage would be such a big issue if these things had happened.

Why restrict employer-paid medical benefits to spouses and children? Why not allow an employee to choose? If, for example, my mother needed medical benefits, and if I weren’t married, why shouldn’t I be allowed to include my mother in my coverage? My brother? My neighbor? My friend?